[b34k3r]

"We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program! Our Jihad is a "dump program." We dump the things which destroy us as humans!".

I know, Dune and yeah, i get it - science fiction aint real life - but im still into these vibes.

Anyone wanna start a club?

[0xEF]

"Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in hopes that this would set them free, but that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

Yeah, I'm in. Let me know when and where the meetings are held.

[fragmede]

We're on Salusa Secundus, second pylon to the right, just off the Imperial Penal Complex. 6pm, Wednesday. Use the green parrot to enter, otherwise you'll be cast out. We don't want to let anybody from IX in.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> other men with machines to enslave them

The machines didn't enslave anyone in this scenario. "Men with machines" did. I think of the techbro oligarchs who decide what a feed algorithm shows.

[Barrin92]

>We must negate the machines-that-think

I wish we had machines that actually thought because they'd at least put an end to whatever this is. In the words of Schopenhauer, this is the worst of all possible worlds not because it couldn't be worse but because if it was a little bit worse it'd at least cease to exist. It's just bad enough so that we're stuck with the same dreck forever. This isn't the Dune future but the Wall-E future. The problem with the Terminator franchise and all those Eliezer Yudkowsky folks is that they are too optimistic.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NdN153giLdI/sddefault.jpg

[measurablefunc]

Technocracy is ascendant, the only question is whether you subscribe to the optimistic or pessimistic variant. But don't worry, the current state of affairs is a fluke & equilibrium will be restored once all the easily combustible sources of fossil fuels are exhausted.

[jMyles]

I'm not sure that this message is meant to be taken as viable, let alone sacrosanct.

<spoiler>

I interpreted Thufir Hawat's massive misunderstanding of Lady Jessica's motivation (which was a huge plot point in the book but sadly didn't make it into the films) as evidence that the conclusion that humans are capable of the exact same undesirable patterns as machines.

Did I read that wrong?

</spoiler>

[zehaeva]

The point of Dune, or the Butlerian Jihad within Dune, isn't that Humans are more capable than the Thinking Machines. It is that Humans should be the author of their own destiny, that and the Thinking Machines were enslaving humanity and going to exterminate them. Just like how the Imperium was enslaving all of humanity and was going to lead to the extinction of humanity. This was seen, incompletely, by Paul and later, completely, by Leto II who then spent 10,000 years working through a plan to allow humanity to escape extinction and enslavement.

Dune's a wild ride man!

[beeflet]

I am reading Dune Messiah now and it clearly isn't as good as the first book. I consider the story more of a self-contained book than a series.

Taking the first book by itself, it doesn't speak much about the relationship between man and machine. The fundamental themes are rooted in man's relationship with ecology (both as the cause and effect).

[zehaeva]

A lot of what is great about Dune are the inversions of the story past the first novel.

If you take the first book alone you're left with only one facet of a much grander story. You're also left with the idea a white savior story that says might makes right, which really isn't what was going on at all.

[beeflet]

>You're also left with the idea a white savior story that says might makes right

I think the first book is more nuanced than that. It's a demonstration of the nietzschean perspective, but it doesn't make any assertions about morality.

The story shows us how humans are products of their environment: Striving for peace or "morality" is futile, because peace makes men weak, which creates a power vacuum which ends peace. Similarly, being warlike is also futile because even if you succeed, it guarantees that you will become complacent and weak. It's never said outright, but all of the political theory in the book is based on the idea that "hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times". It's like the thesis of "Guns Germs and Steel": frank herbert proposes that in the long term, no cultural or racial differences matter; that everything is just a product of environmental factors. In a way it's also the most liberal perspective you can have. But at the same time, it is also very illiberal because in the short term race and culture does matter.

The "moral" of dune is that political leaders don't really have agency because they are bound by their relationships that define power in the first place, which are a product of the environment. Instead, the real power is held by the philosopher-kings outside of the throne because they have the ability to change the environment (like pardot kynes, who is the self-insert for frank herbert). The book asks us to choose individual agency and understanding over the futility of political games.

From the use of propaganda to control the city-dwellers in the beginning of the book to the change in paul's attitudes towards the end of the book I think the transactional nature of the atredies's goodwill is pretty plainly spelt out for us. I mean we learn by the end that paul is part harkonnen by blood, and in the same way as the harkonenn use of the "brutal" rabban and "angelic" feyd, it's all public relations. Morality is a tool of control.

I think the reason you are uneasy about the idea of the "white savior" playing a role in the book is because you actually subscribe to this fake morality yourself, in real life. You are trying to pidgeonhole the story like it's "Star Wars" or something. Dune is against the idea of "morality" itself. By bringing up the "white savior" concept, you are clearly thinking in terms of morality. By having some morality, this puts you at odds with the real point of the book, which is where the unease comes from. You want the dissonance to be resolved, but the real story of dune is open-ended.

[zehaeva]

I have said much of the same about dune in my own life to others, about how the main thesis is "hard times make strong men, ...", but that still does boil down to might makes right.

Saying that the first book alone doesn't make any assertions about morality is somewhat hilarious. The baron is queer coded, so too is feyd, the "good guys" are strong manly men. Even just the idea that "hard times make strong men, .." is a morality in and of itself.

I never said I was uneasy about the idea of a white savior, you are reading far too much into my beliefs and ideals. I would also appreciate that you do not project onto my any of your imaginings of my own beliefs. You do not know me.

That said, if you have only read the first books you truly are getting only one small facet of the story that Herbert was trying to tell. A lot of what is laid out in the first novel is inverted and overturned by the 3rd and 4th novels.

Finally, you have written a lot about one book out of a long series of books. I would suggest that, like your wont to project some sort of belief onto me, you, too, are projecting too much upon just the first entry of a much, much, larger epic.

[insane_dreamer]

The later books deal with it more.

[Modified3019]

I had never made that exact connection, but my impression of the Dune universe was that it was hopelessly dark and horrific, basically humans being relentlessly awful to each other with no way out.

[Kreutzer]

I don't think its quite reducible to that. Take a step back and look at how you have an Emperor whose power is offset by both the Landsraad and the navigator's guild. This arrangement has all come about because of a scarce resource only available on one desert planet which makes space travel possible, and which has a population who have been fiercely fighting a guerilla war for centuries. It was all bound to come undone whether Paul accepted his part or not.

[righthand]

It’s kind of presented that way from the view of anyone under the oppression (Paul, Fremen, Jessica, etc). Therefor Paul’s vision is the way out, right? The whole thing is a mechanic to subdue the reader before they reveal that Paul doesn’t care he just wants to do things the way he sees it and controls it.

[unsnap_biceps]

The golden path was to break prescient vision and prevent any possible extinction of the human race. Paul actually turned his back on the golden path and became the preacher, trying to prevent it, but after his death, his son, Leto II, followed the path.

[Terr_]

Well, I've been surrounded by "machines that think" for my entire life, formed of unfathomably complex swarms of nanobots. So far we seem to get along.

If there were a new kind of "machines that think"--and they aren't a dangerous predator--they could be a contrast to help us understand ourselves and be better.

The danger from these (dumber) machines is that they may be used for reflecting, laundering, and amplifying our own worst impulses and confusions.

[hhjinks]

Another human being doesn't scare me, because they will think like a human, consider themselves human, and relate to humans.

A thinking machine is a total unknown. If human intelligence and machine intelligence are not aligned, then what?

[beeflet]

There is a new kind of machine in the works that converts your grey matter into grey goo

[baobun]

> unfathomably complex swarms of nanobots

???

[Terr_]

It's you: A swarm of ~37 trillion cooperating nanobots, each one complex beyond human understanding, constructing and animating a titanic mobile megafortress that shambling across a planet consumed by a prehistoric grey-goo event.

[array_key_first]

It's not me, because I'm human, and that's not.

Why does that matter? Isn't it all the same? No, because I'm human, and I can make special exceptions for humans.

Isn't that perfect hypocrisy? Yes, but I'm human, and it's okay because I get to decide what's okay and I say it's okay because I'm human.

See also: why can I eat a burger but Jeffrey Dahmer went to prison?

[thoroughburro]

They are referring to the bacteria we animals need to survive.

[lovich]

I assumed it was a reference to humans being multicellular life as each cell is nanobot sized and automata

[cowboylowrez]

he's mistaken, your body is most certainly not hosting nanobots lol

[Nevermark]

I do hope suggesting that you google "human cells" doesn't prove traumatic.

[cowboylowrez]

I counter-suggest you google "nanobots" or probably more in general, "robots". let me know where they fit in the tree of life, and I will consider myself duly corrected and enlightened!

[Terr_]

"I could casually acknowledge I didn't catch an oblique joke about a new way of viewing the natural world which I previously took for granted... but it's too late! To admit an oopsie would be anathema to my identity and social survival. In this desperate hour, I have no choice but to argue that it is categorically wrong to view cellular biology a form of nanotech or vice-versa, using the narrowest and most pedantic dictionary entries."

[Terr_]

For new heights (lows?) of delusional parasitosis: "They're under my skin! They ARE my skin!"

[zer00eyz]

> Anyone wanna start a club?

You would not be the first, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Funny thing is that we still have hand made fabric today, and were still employing a frighting number of people in the manufacturing of clothing. The issue is that we're making more lower quality products rather than higher quality items.

[viraptor]

Ted Kaczynski went that way, but was more of a lone wolf guy.

[wartywhoa23]

Count me in!

[bluefirebrand]

Yes, I am in

I will never bow before the machine god